B. M. LAL, J. Suhail Ahmad, who is a registered contractor in the office of Regional Food Controller Allahabad and doing the contract-job of transporting food grains, sugar etc. from P1cf godown Dandi, Allahabad to all blocks of district Allahabad, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing an order of respondent No. 2 dated 1-7-1996, by which contract-job of transportation has been allotted to respondent No. 3-M/s Ekbal and Sons, Kareilly, Allahabad. 2. In nutshell, the caseof the petitioner is that he is a contractor carrying on busi ness of transportation of food grain & Sugar of F. C. I. (Food Corporation of India ). The branch of F. C. I. at Allahabad i. e. respondent No. 2 Regional Food Controller Allahabad, invites tenders every year from registered contractors and after considering over all comparative merits as also the rates offered, the contract of transportation is settled in favour of the best contractor. 3. That for the year 1996-97 commenc ing 1-4-1996 and ending 31-3-1997, tenders were invited. According to averments made in the writ petition, pursuant to tender notice, five contractors nave submitted their tender-forms, in which rate offered by the petitioner is the lowest. Vide paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition, details of all five tenders and the rates offered, have also been furnished by the petitioner which are as under: (1) Suhail Ahmad (Petitioner) 540% ASr (2) Mukhtar Construction Company 560% ASr (3) Rajiv Ghosh Rate not filled up (4) M/s Ekbal & Sons (respondent No. 3) 590% ASr (5) Anand Kumar Agarwal 595% ASr 4. However, it is further averred that after negotiation the petitioner has reduced his rate from 540% ASR to 530% ASR whereas respondent No. 3-Ekbal & Sons reduced its rate from 590% ASR to 540% ASR. The remaining three contractors did not turn up for negotiation. 5. Thus, main grievance of the petitioner is that despite petitioners tender being of the lowest rate and even after negotiation, reduction in rate from 540% ASR to 530% ASR, the said contract was not granted in favour of the petitioner but was granted to respondent No. 3 M/s Ekbal & Sons, whose tender rate was 10% ASR higher than the petitioner. 6. Therefore, it is contended that petitioner has been discriminated violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitu tion of India. 6. Therefore, it is contended that petitioner has been discriminated violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitu tion of India. It is also submitted that throughout, the work of the petitioner was found commendable and letters of ap preciation were also issued by the authority concerned in favour of the petitioner. 7. Hence, it is submitted that the order of respondent No. 2 dated 1-7-1996 award ing contract in favour of respondent No. 3 for the year 1996-97 be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to work. 8. While filing counter-affidavit on be half of respondent No. 2, the respondents have emerged with the plea that respondent No. 2 has acted in conformity with the set tled norms considering over all merits and past performance of all the tenderers. The respondent No. 2 has categorically given instances of lapses on the part of petitioner about his past performance contending that the petitioner does not own trucks but engages the truck on hire whenever contract of transportation is given to him. Besides this, ready transport was not available with him. It is further pointed out that various radiograms were received from various Sub-Divisional Magistrates with respect to non-reaching if food grains and other com modities on the scheduled date and time, for which notice was also issued to the petitioner on 12- 5-1995 with respect to delayed supply. It is submitted that despite notice the petitioner has not improved his work of supplying food grains to various sub-divisions in time, and therefore another show cause notice was issued to him on 23-5-1995. Copies of these notices have been annexed with the counter-affidavit as Annexure C. A. 2 and C. A. 3. However, the petitioner is said to have assured that he will supply food grains by engaging ten trucks for transportation. But the said assurance could not materialize and the petitioner could manage only supply of two trucks. Not only this, it is further submitted that total work and conduct of the petitioner was never satisfactory. He could not comply with the directions issued by the department from time to time in respect of prompt supply. Besides this, he also misbehaved with the employees of the department, for which a written complaint was made to the higher authority vide annexure C. A.-6. He could not comply with the directions issued by the department from time to time in respect of prompt supply. Besides this, he also misbehaved with the employees of the department, for which a written complaint was made to the higher authority vide annexure C. A.-6. It is also pleaded that petitioner is not only defaulter of affecting public distribution system but was also habitual of supplying short com modities in weight. On various occasions the petitioner has not supplied actual com modities with proper weight as was lifted and loaded in his truck from the EC. I. godown. Various complaints were received in respect of shortage of commodities and various dates have been mentioned in the counter-affidavit in this regard and reports to that effect were also lodged, copies of which have been annexed with the counter- affidavit. 9. A counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 has also been filed stating that respondent No. 2 has rightly granted the contract in his favour. 10. Refuting the allegations made by respondent No. 2 in his counter-affidavit, the petitioner, no doubt, has filed his rejoinder-affidavit but that has been stated therein, does not inspire confidence as the petitioner has admitted that he does not own any truck. 11. Having heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kushwaha, learned Standing Coun sel representing respondent No. 2, this Court is of the opinion that this petition has no force. 12. Considering para 7 of the condi tions of tender, at the time of settlement of the contract it is to be seen by the authority concerned as to whether previous work of the contractor and his total performance, was satisfactory or not. 13. Besides this, in terms of clause 14 of the conditions of tender, every tenderer is required to supply details of trucks as well as the permits duly verified by the A. R. T. O. concerned. The petitioner neither sub mitted the details as per clause 14 at the time of filing tender application nor even thereafter. 14. Thus, it appears that taking into consideration the over all conduct of the petitioner and previous record, wherein he was habitual defaulter and even guilty of short supply of food grains, the respondent No. 2 has rightly not granted the contract in the petitioners favour. 15. 14. Thus, it appears that taking into consideration the over all conduct of the petitioner and previous record, wherein he was habitual defaulter and even guilty of short supply of food grains, the respondent No. 2 has rightly not granted the contract in the petitioners favour. 15. Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in granting contracts, three tests viz. non-arbitrariness, action with reasons and action in public interest, are to be applied, and if an action of the State or its instrumentality i. e. in the instant case respondent No. 1 & 2, is found to be unreasonable, arbitrary and not in public interest, that has to be struck down. 16. The submission made by the learned counsel has no two opinions. The proposition of law in this respect is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. See E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 266 , Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kash mir AIR 1980 SC 1992 , Sri Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India & others AIR 1986 SC 1527 , and Sri Sachidanand Pandey & others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 . 17. In Food Corporation of India v. Mis Kamdiienu Cattle Feed Industries (1992) 6 JT (SC 259), the Apex Court ruled that, "in contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-ar bitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is "fair play in action". Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumen talities, with this element forming a neces sary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. 18. In Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 1 (1) 151, a passage explaining the scope of legitimate expectation runs thus: "81. 18. In Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 1 (1) 151, a passage explaining the scope of legitimate expectation runs thus: "81. Legitimate expectation-A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may rise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied repre sentation, or from consistent past practice. " 19. At this juncture, it is also necessary to consider the scope of judicial review when challenge is made on the basis of legitimate expectation, as argued by Sri V B. Singh that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be considered when his offer was the lowest amongst all the bidders. In this regard, it will not be out of place to refer a decision rendered in Findlay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1984) 3 All England Report-801, wherein it is observed: "the doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in the developing law of judi cial review. It is, however, not necessary to explore the doctrine in this case, it is enough merely to note that a legitimate expectation can provide a sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the court to apply for judicial review". 20. Similarly, Lord Dip lock observed in Council of Civil Service Unions case 1984 (3) All ER 935: "to qualify as a subject for judicial review the decision must have consequences which affect some person (or body of persons) other than the decision-maker, although it may affect him too. 20. Similarly, Lord Dip lock observed in Council of Civil Service Unions case 1984 (3) All ER 935: "to qualify as a subject for judicial review the decision must have consequences which affect some person (or body of persons) other than the decision-maker, although it may affect him too. It must affect such other person either (a) by alter ing rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he has in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational ground for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for con tending that they should not be withdrawn. " 21. No doubt, in granting contracts Government actions should be in conform ity with Article 14 of the Constitution, the power of judicial review is basic feature of our constitution and it is also recognised by the Supreme Court of United States in Mar-bury v. Medicine in 1803. Therefore, under judicial review of such contracts are found suffering from arbitrariness, indeed the same can be quashed by this Court. 22. But that is not all, as argued by Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. Normally other conditions being equal with all tenders, the lowest offer in deed shall be preferred as it safeguards the interest of State Exchequer, but where the past performance and other requirements of the lowest tenderer are not up to the mark having not been discharged satisfactorily by the contractor in the past, and other terms and conditions of the tender are not ful filled, the lowest offer would be of no avail. In the instant case the petitioner did not fulfill clauses 13 and 14 of the tender notice as he does not own trucks which are the man datory requirement. Besides this he was not found regular in transporting the com modities and he was also guilty of short supply as well as misbehavior with the staff, therefore, past performance has been taken into consideration. 24. Besides this he was not found regular in transporting the com modities and he was also guilty of short supply as well as misbehavior with the staff, therefore, past performance has been taken into consideration. 24. In this regard, a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Patna Regional Development Authority & others v. Miss Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam & others, JT1996 (6) SC113 is directly on the point, wherein the Apex Court ruled that past performance of the tenderer is relevant consideration in deciding whether tender should be awarded to him or not. 25. In the instant case, admittedly past performance of the petitioner is not found upto the mark. In State of U. P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1234 , the Apex Court considered the circumstances under which the Government is not always bound to accept the highest bid offered in a public auction under which a contract was to be awarded to fell trees and exploit forest produce, and ruled that the Government was under no obligation to accept the highest bid and that no rights accrued to the bidder merely because his bid happened to be the highest or the lowest as the case may be. It is over all considerations which must inspire confidence in the authority that if contract is given to a particular tenderer he will execute same to the full satisfaction, and if for any reason to be recorded, the authority comes to the conclusion that though tenderers bid is the lowest amongst all bidders which financially benefits to the public exchequer but in the long run not only ultimately result in depletion of public revenue besides being harmful to the object of the contract, certainly in such cases the department is allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any strait-jacket formula and this is particularly true in cases of dealing with economic matters. 26. Lastly, Sri V. B. Singh contended that a fresh tender has been granted to the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that his past conduct was so bad that it disentitled him for the tender in question. It is also submitted that a certificate in the petitioners favour was also issued certifying his good performance. 27. 26. Lastly, Sri V. B. Singh contended that a fresh tender has been granted to the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that his past conduct was so bad that it disentitled him for the tender in question. It is also submitted that a certificate in the petitioners favour was also issued certifying his good performance. 27. The submission has also no force in-as much as it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 that a very short distance contract was given to him which does not cover any risk. As far as the certificate is concerned, it is submitted that no person is authorised to issue such certificate in the department and if any contractor obtains any such certificate from anybody in the department, it is of no relevance. 28. Thus, from the discussion aforesaid, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the writ juris diction. 29. The petition has no merit and is accordingly. Petition dismissed. .